Enable a previously disabled monitor to resume its scheduled runs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | CatchAll API key. Optional if provided via x-api-key header or CATCHALL_API_KEY env var. | |
| backfill | No | Optional backfill behavior for resume. | |
| monitor_id | Yes | The monitor ID to enable |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the monitor resumes scheduled runs, but omits important details like whether enabling triggers immediate runs, if there are side effects, or if the monitor must be disabled first. The description is insufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence of 9 words, front-loading the purpose. Every word is necessary, and there is no wasted content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description adequately covers the core purpose. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., monitor must exist and be disabled) or the effect on missed runs, but it is largely complete with an output schema available.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify the 'backfill' parameter or the 'api_key' parameter. The schema already describes these, so no extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Enable') and resource ('a previously disabled monitor') and clearly states the outcome ('resume its scheduled runs'). It differentiates from the sibling 'disable_monitor' tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that the tool is for enabling a monitor that was previously disabled, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., only after disable_monitor). No exclusions or context are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.